There are some basic principles which are the drive behind the ideas of haudauctorism and should be made clear. These basic principles, the order of which does not matter, are:
Subjective Compulsion
When something is said to be subjective, it is only true to the individuals which view it as true, false to those who view it as false and pointless to those who view it as pointless. Subjective compulsion is a principle which states that nothing is truly 'compulsory', because only the individual can decide what is a must and what can be set aside. When something is said to be objective it is true regardless of what any individual or group thinks: the existence of the sun is objective; opinions on pretty much anything are subjective.
Basically, it means that no one should be compelled, forced or nagged to do things they do not feel like doing, whatever their reasons may be. That is to say, 'subjective compulsivists' should have equal opportunity and be judged in the same manner as and by objective compulsivists.
Non-aggression
The non-aggression principle is a very important, widely accepted and sometimes misunderstood concept. Non-aggression simply means that one person does not have the right, nor virtue to initiate violence against another person's body and/or fruits of labor unless in self-defense.
This principle has been, at times, taken to a point where it becomes self-defeating. Some of the more vulgar right libertarians, for example, have applied this as an axiom which is to be followed at all times. If I was hanging from a flagpole on a high building and the only way to save myself was to break the window beside me and trespass, I would not be allowed to do it. I would be subject to punishment, because I have temporarily refused to see legitimacy in property rights. However, when the rights of life and liberty are at stake, the rights of property can and should be set aside, because, as the propertarians themselves have noted, property rights come from life and liberty rights.
The principle of non-aggression is therefore necessary, but insufficient for a free society.
Objective ethics
Objective ethics are ethics which apply regardless of what an individual and/or a group believes. Killing, raping, stealing, pillaging and scamming are all activities which we see as bad. And this is objectively true as well. While the subjective and/or inter-subjective values can at times match the objective values, like in the example above, sometimes the inter-subjective consensus can simply be wrong. By the time people figure that out, the damages may already be done.
That is why, when it comes to ethics, there is need for objective values which are true all the time. Non-aggression, self-being, self-love and love for others are all objective values which have been proven true. If these are ever abandoned, society could break down.
Self-Being
Self-being, also erroneously referred to as ‘self ownership’, is a concept which states that an individual has full sovereign rights over their body. From these rights stem various other rights, such as property rights.
But self-ownership is a logically false term and what is more, it causes great misunderstandings and controversies. The problem with self-ownership is that I do not own myself, I am myself. I cannot actually own myself or my body. Have I chosen, bought or received my body as a gift? Is one to imply that before I was born into (for the lack of better terms) my body I made a choice to get that particular body? No, I never chose my body; and I am certain that the person born with one eye, their heart upside down and one arm ¼ the size of the other has not been born that way with his/her consent either.
Out of everyone, my parents had the most control of the outcome of my body. Am I then owned by my parents? But even my parents did not have full and total control of the outcome of their love. So this means that I and my body are not owned at all, because we are not chosen to exist; my personality, for example, is unique, not bought, sold, gifted, homesteaded and/or handled in any other propertarian form. I am myself and I am my body, hence self-ownership is a useless logical fallacy and self-being is the root of liberty.
Natural Rights
Natural rights are rights which man; woman and child are born with. In the case of religious folks, the closes idea is god-given rights. Whatever concept of natural rights is taken, a few things stand in common: inalienability, unconditional, they are given from birth, not contract and they are necessary.
Natural rights are necessary, because without them, one must take an egoist approach to rights. And while I agree with egoists in the large-scale, their concept of rights is not very sufficient to actually create rights. Some egoists have taken up the position that a person has no rights until (s)he signs a contract. Therefore, (s)he belongs to his/her parents until (s)he can sign a contract.
So if I stop a woman from throwing her baby into a fire, I am violating her property rights. Such a position is incompatible with the principle of Self-being and therefore not acceptable.
Not to mention that such a concept of rights depends on ability. Hence, this is not really a right, but a privilege. If I did not have the means to sign a contract, I can’t have rights. People born with disabilities which hinder their ability to sign or understand a contract for their entire life will never get rights. Those who advocate this then also imply that if I am born a certain way, I am allowed to have rights and if I am not, then I can’t have rights. If ideas like this one are used to structure society, then all you will get is Auschwitz on one side and the Kremlin on the other.
To avoid such ridiculous notions and situations we need to have a concept of inalienable rights which do not depend on abilities and/or age.
Free association
Free association is a concept and principle, which emphasizes the right of one individual to come together with other individuals, groups, contracts and/or constitutions and leave them without the use and/or threat of violence. If I want to trade this for that with him, then they should not try to stop me. This simple principle applied in the large scale is necessary, but might not be sufficient for liberty.
Self-Sufficiency
Self-sufficiency is a concept which says that one should be able to do some things by oneself without outside interference and/or interaction. For example, I believe that each person should be able to produce the basic necessities required for life with minimum interaction with society and/or others. This requires that at least some of the means of production are available to all, either commonly or individually.
When self-sufficient, each individual will be able to produce for him/herself and as Rousseau himself said, slavery will become impossible and “every one is there his own master”.
Universalism without adjectives
The main quarrel between anarchists is the universal social structure. Will the large scale society be structured by anarcho-capitalist principles or will it be structured by libertarian socialist principles? I say that both parties have got it all wrong. Both sides must realize that libertarian socialism, anarcho capitalism and haudauctorism are all just philosophies and systems that some people like and other don’t. By no means capable of organizing large scale societies alone.
The libertarian socialists must realize that the free marketer is not the enemy, and the free marketer would certainly allow libertarian socialists to do their thing.
When the state is smashed, anarcho capitalists will go one way and the socialists will go the other. There will not and should not be any ‘join us or die’ religious rhetoric. The free marketers (even some of the vulgar ones) are more than willing to allow libertarian socialism to flourish. The problem here is universalism. And the only system that can in fact be universal is anarchism without adjectives. And anarchism without adjectives is basically all the core principles of anarchism.